“Osborne's and Gaebler's Ten Principles of Reinvention are:
1. Catalytic Government (steering rather than rowing)
2. Community-owned Government (empowering rather than serving)
3. Competitive Government (injecting competition into service delivery)
4. Mission-driven Government (transforming rule-driven organizations)
5. Results-oriented Government (funding outcomes, not inputs)
6. Customer-driven Government (meeting the needs of the customer, not the bureaucracy)
7. Enterprising Government (earning rather than spending)
8. Anticipatory Government (prevention rather than cure)
9. Decentralized Government (from hierarchy to participation and teamwork)
10. Market-oriented Government (leveraging change trough the market)”
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_osborne_ten_principles_reinv...
Here is an article that elaborates on the 10 prinicples: http://www.bizsum.com/articles/art_banishing-bureaucracy.php
“Reinventing Government would be worthwhile reading for any citizen aspiring to be an agent of change. It should be of particular interest to leisure practitioners and researchers who are involved in and rely on governmental services. Indeed, the book's first success story is that of a park and recreation system that, with decentralized authority and creative financing, managed to save over sixty thousand dollars toward the purchase of a new swimming pool. Many issues addressed in the book mirror those addressed both in informal conversation and in formal presentations at our professional meetings, including issues involving equity, marketing, and the debate over customers versus clients.
As a snapshot of government in transition, Reinventing Government presents a panoramic view of a different kind of future brought about by changing societal trends and influences. Although the prospect of such a future may be stressful to those currently entrenched in the system, I hope the prospect can be seen as challenging rather than threatening, and that it might lead, in turn, to a renewed sense of enthusiasm for the promise of successful governance.”
-Schneider, Ingrid, Journal of Leisure Research, June 22 1995
http://www.articlearchives.com/company-activities-management/company-str...
I have encountered some other interesting experiments where organizations have followed these. One was the National Performance Review of the Clinton administration, headed by Al Gore.
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_osborne_ten_principles_reinv...
The NPR was basically successful, in that it did improve the economy by shrinking the budget deficit, and it also increased the sense of customer satisfaction. David Osborne in fact worked closely with the Progressive Policy Institute, a non-profit “think tank” considered by Donald F. Ketl in his book “Reinventing Government: A Fifth Year Report Card” to be the “brain child of Al Gore.”
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID...
http://books.google.com/books?id=sqBqC4zSzoYC&printsec=frontcover
Contrary to the general concept about “Democratic” leaders and the assumed agenda to push for “Big Government,” the NPR was very much interested in decentralized government. Clinton eliminated 300,000 federal jobs. The NPR was in fact an attempt to implement the 10 principles of reinventing government. Where some consider it to have been successful during Clinton’s administration, it is seen as basically having lost its relevance once 9/11 and Homeland Security of the Bush administration entered the scene.
I don’t think the NPR was a total success, or anywhere near that. I do think it may have opened a door to a path that might aid the current situation. For one, I do not think it was successful at effective audits and measures for keeping people and agencies accountable.
The U.K. seemed to have managed to close the gap between customer satisfaction and education and health care servicesunder Margaret Thatcher’s administration.
http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/ReinventingGovernmentAgai...
I found a fascinating agency that seems to support these 10 Principles, as well as perhaps going even further than imagined. http://www.sevenfund.org/research-funding-areas.html
“S.E.VEN funding is intended to catalyze, support and disseminate research on questions of economic development, prosperity and entrepreneurship. Funding is particularly targeted toward new frontiers in enterprise-based solutions to poverty and innovative ideas that are unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources.
Our approach is nontraditional, posing a challenge to the classic pattern of funding top-down projects with government-led conceptual frameworks. We support the uncertain and often interdisciplinary methods required to develop and encourage truly entrepreneurial approaches to wealth creation and poverty reduction."
S.E. VEN funds has some amazing scholarship opportunities, by the way. It’s worth considering for any student.
Here are some other interesting examples of reinvention, and thoughts on the 10 principles:
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/bur/features/index_03/reinven...
http://www.bizsum.com/articles/art_banishing-bureaucracy.php
I think that the 10 Principles would provide a framework for a very successful and prosperous community. I wonder if anyone working on the “economic stimulus package” is considering them?
All I want for my government to do is not spend my money like drunken 21 year guys at a stripe club for the first time.
Point 1 letting the government steer, rather then row is annoying to say the least they should be in the boat as a look out making sure that we do not hit any rocks that will sink us.
Point 2 is interesting thanks to FDR (a Democrat) we lost having our government lower level power because everyone start to look higher for more answers and those in the higher offices do not want to give up that power.
Point 3 I have said before that the government needs to keep monopolies from forming I have no problem with that, but who will watch the government what is being suggest here is government control. If the government feels that a company is getting to big and powerful they will side with the competitor and crush them or take over the company very sad that any one would wish for that.
Point 4 mission rather then rules (I looked at your link it is just as bad as it sounds) means get the job done no matter what. You give that power to the government and all hell will break loose. They would start to take away are rights because what are our rights but the rules that the government must follow in regards to the people. You remove the restrictions to obey rules and you will find yourself on a slipper slope to which there maybe no return from.
Point 5 see point 4 if you are only interested in what the end item is and not how you get to it then you should not be upset by the nightmares you would have.
Point 6 I would really like the government to be afraid of their customers and be more willing to listen to what they want but that will only happen if we the people change how we do things get involved for one and stop letting the T.V. make are choose for us. Know who is getting the other office that we elect people to. Do you remember who you choose to be your senator or representative in your state government or federal for that matter?
Point 7 earning rather than spending the government should be focus on pay off the debt and the only thing that they should be earning is tax money and I do not want them earning more then they have.
Point 8 it sounds good but how is the government going to prevent anything in the market are they going to tell us what and when we can buy something. Are they going to force companies to make what the government wants them to make and tell them how much and how many. Is that what you want?
Point 9 you need to have a central government so you know who is in charge or you need to overthrow our government and install your version of communism.
Point 10 lets force the markets to do what we want it too. Sorry, not going to work unless you force the people to do what the government wants them to do. Otherwise there is no way the government can total control the market.
I stand here for the free market lets get the government out of it and let it fix itself. Standing here stating that we need to change the government and give them more control over our lives is crazy I want them to lose there control and be subjects to the will of their people not what they think is right. Maybe I am wrong maybe having the military in forcing laws on the streets will do some good Drug dealers are costing this country far to much money anybody found doing drugs or with drugs will be killed wow drug problem solved I refer you back to point 4 and 5 we are talking about the government and they have control over more then the economy. Once you give them more power do you think your voice will be heard by anyone.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
by your reaction, simply because my first encounter with these rules led me to a very different interpretation from yours.
I found the principles to actually be quite "conservative," in that they promote bringing the government down to the very same level as businesses. I saw them as encouraging choice, and making it the burden of the government to actually have to listen to the people in order to survive.
I saw them as putting power in the hands of the people.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
The fact of the matter is I want limited government I do not want them to have any power over the market other then to stop monopolies. These rules give them more power then they have.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
used in my text book of a government agency that had to either adapt to the needs of the consumer or risk being displaced entirely by private companies.
With FedEX, and UPS, as well as numerous other courier and delivery services, the USPS had to change the way it conducted business in order to thrive.
Ultimately, i do not think that these ideas make government bigger. I think they make government more accountable. We the consumers are given the power by choosing what kind of service we want. The fact that we are not forced to succumb to the inefficiency of one government agency that monopolizes the entire industry of private delivery means that the power is transferred from the government to the people.
It forces government to respond to us and what we want, rather than itself, and what it wants.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Good point but I still do not what the government as a whole to get big and try to control the economy.
Side the stimulus bill passed in the senate with universal health care in it and alot of causes about forced patient care such as elderly will not get treatment they need because they have passed their usefulness. Basically their is a math problem the take the cost of treatment and subtract that from what years the treatment will gain him and if the treatment is more expensive then the government says you can not treat him and if you do then you will be punished. I thought they were only going to make insurance not a hostile take over of health care. So are this the same people that will listen to our demands and our wants? They have made it so they can say who lives and who dies.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
When you bring healthcare into the picture, things get muddied pretty quickly.
Whether you or I like it or not, the government is already controlling healthcare.
Scared of "socialized healthcare?" Guess what my friend, it is already in play, and has been for a very long time. Health care dominates federal spending, from 50-90% of the federal budget, depending on who is in charge.
Whoever provides the cash makes the rules.
"Federal spending is the largest and most important component of funding for the health care safety net, providing an estimated $19.8 billion in funding in 2001. In that year the Federal government provided *two-thirds* of all government spending on the health care safety net and more than half of all spending from all sources.
Yet, in spite of this substantial subsidy, someone uninsured for the entire year still received only about half as much medical care on an annual basis as a privately insured person.
A substantial body of research indicates that this deficit in the amount of care received by the uninsured leads to significantly worse health. Since 2001, 4.6 million more Americans have become uninsured, leaving 45.8 million people without insurancecoverage in 2004.
State and local governments have likely not been able to maintain, let alone increase, their level of support for safety-net funding. This work demonstrates that federal spending on the health care safety net has not kept pace with the growth in the uninsured over the past three years."
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured
Federal Spending on the Health Care Safety Net
from 2001 – 2004: Has Spending Kept Pace with the
Growth in the Uninsured?
(sorry, I downloaded the PDF file, but forgot to bookmark the URL)
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Would you like to have to tell a family member sorry we can not treat your grandfather because he is to old and the government will punish us. Under the universal health care in this bill ALL medical institutes will have to follow the government demands on the health communities. I hope you and I never have to be told that our hospital will not treat a family member because they are to old.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
to see the documentation that led you to that conclusion. I would like to the details of any health care bill.
I agree there are going to be some controversial details, but i can't pass judgment on anything without knowing exactly what it is.
I understand the pro-life frustration with the Prevention First Act for instance, which will have an impact on how the stimulus dollars are going to get filtered to the community.
On that issue, i feel that contraception is an important part of personal health, and if medical practitioners are *refusing* to make it available to their patients, they are neglecting a part of that hollistic picture of their patient. Therefore, they should not be eligible to receive special federal funds to only treat chosen biological systems.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1:
Number 7 and look towards the bottom look for this "
TITLE VIII--DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES" and you will find a lot about what I am talking about
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
I found a Title IX, called, the Dept. of Labor, Health and Human Services, etc.:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:7:./temp/~c111YjbPuT:e248556:
The entire thing is *struck out*..
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
You need to scroll down almost to the bottom. after you get past all the struck outs.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
duplicate post